Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

My two cents as a lifelong practicing member of the church. If you are prioritizing the canon of scripture I would say it goes like this:

1. Book of Mormon
2. Bible
3. Conference talks
4. D&C/PofGP

I agree that The Book of Mormon is, in theory, number one. Sometimes I find this amusing, since the Book of Mormon has nothing to add to either Mormon theology or practice. Its only contribution is a purported history of the Americas that has no evidence of having actually happened.

It's no wonder that you seem to need Grant Hardy's deconstructionist hand-holding for you to justify it being there.

[Morley]

Hardy’s back story on these Book of Mormon rewrites is interesting.

Thank you for this.

[ceeboo]

Putting aside the inexcusable and horrific persecution of Jewish people at the hands of Christians (putting it aside because I do not dispute it) - How does this "Jewish community" determine who belongs to it and who doesn't? Is everyone in except those who follow Jesus? Other than ethnicity and religion, what else is in play to make this determination?

Two thousand years of pogroms by Christians are not something that can be, as you say, '"put aside."

Sure it can - putting something aside is to be silent on that something in order to focus on another thing - In this case, how Jewish communities determine who belongs and who doesn't belong.

Earlier, you said that there are "many Jews who are secular, or who practice Talmudic Judaism, or are Muslim, or are Hindu, or are Atheist." Generally speaking, folks of Jewish descent who've converted to another religion do not call themselves Jews, but refer to themselves as Hindus of Jewish descent, or Muslims of Jewish descent.

distinction without a difference.

The Jews I know tend to see the Messianic Jew movement as fraudulent and manipulative.

Fair, but that certainly would not be true for the Jews that are now followers of Jesus (I know a few of them) - Or if you would prefer, saying the same thing with slightly different words - "Christians of Jewish decent."

As to what you call secular or atheistic Jews, this is generally something that bothers Christians much more than it bothers most Jews.

You might be right that it bothers Christians, but I have never met one.
I refer to them as secular Jews because they are secular and Jewish.

Reform Jewish Congregations, for example, don't police their members according to their individual beliefs, which can range from orthodox, to conservative, to liberal, to atheistic. All are welcome. Why should they not be?

'
Not really though, right? All are welcome? Isn't that the point you're trying to make in our exchanges? All, except for those who follow Jesus right?

For the most part, I would agree with you as it relates to a religious community. Where I am struggling is when we take two things (in this case, religion and ethnicity) and treat them as one in the same. They are not.

You're wrong when you say ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things.

You're wrong that I said ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things. I said that a religious Jew and an ethnic Jew (if they are not religious) are always two separate things.

Though by practice, you might never know it, my wife identifies as both an ethnic Iranian and an ethnic Muslim.

My intention is not to be insulting, and I think we are getting a bit off track, but this idea that your wife identifies as an ethnic Muslim makes no sense to me. Understand, I don't care how your wife identifies, but you brought it up, so I am simply expressing my confusion.

As an aside, she considers herself to be more ethnically American than many who were born here. And she's right.

She considers herself to be "more ethnically American than many who were born here."? "And she's right"?
Color me completely perplexed at this pont.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I too grew up under the mandate to read the Book of Mormon every day - I vaguely recall various exhortations to read it daily for 30 minutes to keep my testimony strong. Like others here and elsewhere, I read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover many times, and then studied it fairly intensely throughout my time as a member. Frankly speaking, it was awful and boring to a fault.

We also prayed on our knees, both individually and as a family - core memories of being in a circle, on our knees, holding hands are still easily recalled. I assumed all Mormons did this in the 70’s and 80’s? After that, in the 90’s personal prayer was done on the knees bedside, or at the table on our butts, but I don’t remember praying on my knees with my then wife and toddler. Heads bowed, arms folded, and eyes closed were otherwise normal praying behavior?

- Doc

Interesting post, Cam - Thanks for sharing.

(for what it's worth: Thought it would be fair, due to the times I offer my opinion that your posts contribute no value, to recognize and appreciate when I think you do add value)

Thanks, Ceeboo! Likewise I feel like you’re mostly a blithering idiot, but every once in a while you make post that’s somewhat human. Tip o’ that hat.

- Doc

[Morley]

Two thousand years of pogroms by Christians are not something that can be, as you say, '"put aside."

Sure it can - putting something aside is to be silent on that something in order to focus on another thing - In this case, how Jewish communities determine who belongs and who doesn't belong.

Earlier, you said that there are "many Jews who are secular, or who practice Talmudic Judaism, or are Muslim, or are Hindu, or are Atheist." Generally speaking, folks of Jewish descent who've converted to another religion do not call themselves Jews, but refer to themselves as Hindus of Jewish descent, or Muslims of Jewish descent.

distinction without a difference.

The Jews I know tend to see the Messianic Jew movement as fraudulent and manipulative.

Fair, but that certainly would not be true for the Jews that are now followers of Jesus (I know a few of them) - Or if you would prefer, saying the same thing with slightly different words - "Christians of Jewish decent."

As to what you call secular or atheistic Jews, this is generally something that bothers Christians much more than it bothers most Jews.

You might be right that it bothers Christians, but I have never met one.
I refer to them as secular Jews because they are secular and Jewish.

Reform Jewish Congregations, for example, don't police their members according to their individual beliefs, which can range from orthodox, to conservative, to liberal, to atheistic. All are welcome. Why should they not be?

'
Not really though, right? All are welcome? Isn't that the point you're trying to make in our exchanges? All, except for those who follow Jesus right?

For the most part, I would agree with you as it relates to a religious community. Where I am struggling is when we take two things (in this case, religion and ethnicity) and treat them as one in the same. They are not.

You're wrong when you say ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things.

You're wrong that I said ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things. I said that a religious Jew and an ethnic Jew (if they are not religious) are always two separate things.

Though by practice, you might never know it, my wife identifies as both an ethnic Iranian and an ethnic Muslim.

My intention is not to be insulting, and I think we are getting a bit off track, but this idea that your wife identifies as an ethnic Muslim makes no sense to me. Understand, I don't care how your wife identifies, but you brought it up, so I am simply expressing my confusion.

As an aside, she considers herself to be more ethnically American than many who were born here. And she's right.

She considers herself to be "more ethnically American than many who were born here."? "And she's right"?
Color me completely perplexed at this pont.

What's your definition of ethnicity?

[ceeboo]

Thanks, Ceeboo! Likewise I feel like you’re mostly a blithering idiot, but every once in a while you make post that’s somewhat human. Tip o’ that hat.

- Doc

Thanks!

[I Have Questions]

Deleted

[MG 2.0]

Right, it's not official commentary ratified by the Brethren. You can use his commentary AFTER you first finish your 1/2 hour of reading.

I find it interesting that Hardy allows for the Book of Mormon to be fictional. Here’s a comment from an interview with Jana Riess about the Annotated version of The Book of Mormon…

I tend to treat the Book of Mormon as historical (I was invited by Oxford to edit the volume from a believer’s point of view), but I also point out anachronisms and try to keep in mind the perspectives of those who regard it as religious fiction.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/01 ... Mormon-is/

Is belief that the Book of Mormon is faithful fiction an apostate position?

It would be a heretical position, but not apostate. To be clear, Grant Hardy is a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

A person commentating on his Readers Guide version puts it this way “From the outset, Hardy asks his readers to suspend their beliefs about whether the Book of Mormon is true so that we can analyze it as a work of literature.”

That’s a pretty subversive suggestion from Hardy. Once you start suspending belief in the Book of Mormon, it’s not a stretch to suspend belief in a literal Jesus. And then where does the veracity of Mormon claims end up? Hardy might be an unwitting (witting?) wolf in sheep’s clothing. Hardy helpfully points readers towards things which may give them cause to doubt…

There are, to be sure, anachronisms and implausibilities in the Book of Mormon, and even passages where the Nephites and their prophets do not always live up to their ideals, yielding instead to what we might regard today as materialism, militarism, racism, and sexism.

He is writing for an audience that is interested in every word in the Book of Mormon and how and why those words were placed there and how the over 500 pages fit together as one whole. To to that, he is interested in ALL of the Book of Mormon and is not concerned with how critics might to respond to his open commentary. I don't think he's writing his commentary particularly to the devotional crowd. He's appeal is to those that want to dig deeper into the complexities and intertextuality of the Book of Mormon. That's not for everyone.

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/is-500-pages-too-much

I’m slightly intrigued as to what anachronisms he identifies and how he treats them.

Then I would suggest you buy the Annotated Book of Mormon and find out.

Which is interesting as Nephi died a thousand years before the King James Bible was even conceived.

You are cherry picking only part of what he said.

https://www.associationmormonletters.or ... or-hilton/
Offering readers the idea that the Book of Mormon can be viewed as pure fiction seems about as apostate as it gets.

Hardy's work is a valuable contribution to Book of Mormon study and to Book of Mormon Studies.

I think you might benefit by forking out the dough.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/is-500-pages-too-much

I would highly recommend everyone read this article in its entirety. IHAQ did a bit of cherry picking from it to meet a particular viewpoint or agenda.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

My two cents as a lifelong practicing member of the church. If you are prioritizing the canon of scripture I would say it goes like this:

1. Book of Mormon
2. Bible
3. Conference talks
4. D&C/PofGP

I agree that The Book of Mormon is, in theory, number one. Sometimes I find this amusing, since the Book of Mormon has nothing to add to either Mormon theology or practice. Its only contribution is a purported history of the Americas that has no evidence of having actually happened.

It's no wonder that you seem to need Grant Hardy's deconstructionist hand-holding for you to justify it being there.

I don't look at his work as being deconstructionist. I look at it as being an addition to study. A commentary similar to the works that have been produced as commentary to the Bible.

I think the Book of Mormon does have a lot to offer. For one, to think that after Jesus was resurrected that He visited His 'other sheep' in the New World is quite a 'reveal'. Teachings in regards to His Atonement, the doctrine of Faith, the doctrine of opposition in all things...I could make a long list.

Most importantly, the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Christ given to the world in a day in which belief in the divinity of Christ is questioned by more and more people. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ and His resurrection.

This book, possibly more than any other (although I would put the Bible right up there), gives us a hope in the eternal and all encompassing work of our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG